Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-55594 is a medium-severity Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) vulnerability in Imagemagick Imagemagick. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Malicious Image (T1204.003); ranked at the 15th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-41122
Vulnerability Data
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to versions 6.9.13-51 and 7.1.2-26, a missing depth check in the MVG decoder will result in a stack overflow when a crafted image is provided. This…
more
issue has been fixed in versions 6.9.13-51 and 7.1.2-26.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Crafted malicious image directly triggers the MVG decoder flaw for client-side execution.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces validation of MVG decoder input (depth/recursion bounds) to reject crafted images before stack overflow occurs.
Requires timely application of the vendor patch that adds the missing depth check in versions 6.9.13-51/7.1.2-26.
Provides memory protection mechanisms that can contain or detect stack overflows resulting from uncontrolled MVG recursion.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Explicitly requires monitoring and maintaining resource capacity, directly addressing uncontrolled consumption to preserve availability.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Continuous monitoring of computing resources can detect resource exhaustion but does not itself enforce allocation limits.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
Resilience mechanisms such as avoiding single points of failure indirectly reduce impact of resource exhaustion.
Hardened configuration baselines can include resource quotas and limits that constrain consumption.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Resource-utilization monitoring and alerting on bottlenecks or overloads limits the impact of denial-of-service or resource-exhaustion attacks.
Security testing in development can detect excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
By continuously monitoring utilization, stress-testing peak loads, and maintaining documented plans to scale or throttle resources, the control directly limits an attacker’s ability to drive a system into uncontrolled resource exhaustion.
Pre-agreed severity-based prioritization and resource allocation during incident triage reduce the likelihood that an attacker-induced resource exhaustion will overwhelm the organization before corrective action is taken.
Business-continuity plans that include resource-management controls reduce the likelihood that an attacker can trigger uncontrolled resource consumption by forcing the system into a degraded or fallback state.
Defining RTOs and capacity requirements for ICT services during business-impact analysis forces organizations to provision sufficient resources and throttling mechanisms, reducing the likelihood that an attacker can induce denial-of-service through uncontrolled resource consumption.